Durka-Durka~SPARTA~ Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 In the demo, under scenarios, there's an "Arma2 benchmark" feature. I'm not sure if the guys with the full version have it, but I figured I'd ask to see what everyone's is so we can offer advice on how to tweak things here and there to make it run better. Lay it out in this format: Arma 2 Benchmark: 33 FPS Computer Specs: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 @2.83ghz 3gb of Ram Nvidia GeForce 8800GTS 312mb - Driver Version 6.14.11.8585 Samsung Syncmaster 206bw Monitor - Max resolution = 1680x1050 Windows XP 32bit Service Pack 3 Game Video Settings: Note: Instead of labling all the video options, I just took a screenshot. It might/might not be easier for those of us. So, any suggestions on how to bump my frames up? I'm pretty satisfied, but have only played the demo, so I may need to try to get things running a little smoother soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zebb Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 I can't see that option in the full version mate, but I did notice that if you go into scenario and then "My Missions" you can make a mission on the spot a bit like the battlecentre setup we have in Arma, it works really well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneaky~SPARTA~ Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 In the demo, under scenarios, there's an "Arma2 benchmark" feature. I'm not sure if the guys with the full version have it, but I figured I'd ask to see what everyone's is so we can offer advice on how to tweak things here and there to make it run better. Lay it out in this format: Arma 2 Benchmark: 33 FPS Computer Specs: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 @2.83ghz 3gb of Ram Nvidia GeForce 8800GTS 312mb - Driver Version 6.14.11.8585 Samsung Syncmaster 206bw Monitor - Max resolution = 1680x1050 Windows XP 32bit Service Pack 3 Game Video Settings: Note: Instead of labling all the video options, I just took a screenshot. It might/might not be easier for those of us. So, any suggestions on how to bump my frames up? I'm pretty satisfied, but have only played the demo, so I may need to try to get things running a little smoother soon. Arma 2 Benchmark: 28 FPS Computer Specs: Intel Core 2 E6600 @2.2 ghz 4gb of Ram ATI 3700 512Mb - 9.4 drivers Windows 7 RC x64 my settings were pretty much the same as Durka's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_1 Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 16 FPS on a PC which according to the box shouldn't be able to run it Everything on Low, unsurprisingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenADunn~SPARTA~ Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 Here's what I get....... Arma 2 Benchmark: 30 FPS Computer Specs: AMD +4600 Dual Core 2.4GHz 3gb of Ram Nvidia GeForce 7950 GX2 (1GB Ram) LG Flatron W2042S - Max resolution = 1680x1050 Windows XP 32bit Service Pack 3 Same video game settings as Durka-Durka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cylawyer~SPARTA~ Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 Does that include visibility and resolution settings for game SAD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halli~SPARTA~ Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 FPS 34 E6850 3.00 4 gb ddr2 @ 3.00 xp32 8800gts 512 (G92) NV #186.18 same settings As Durka ecept I run1650x1080 ________________________________________________________________________________ Well this pic looks blurry but I raised the settings except post and got 25FPS. _______________________________________________________________________________ Ok settings lowered FPS 36 _______________________________________________________________________________ FPS 52 Ok lowered all and reduced native res some. Note this pic looks more like ArmA1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenADunn~SPARTA~ Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 (edited) @ Cy ..... Here they are FPS goes down to 20 when there is alot going on though :-( Edited June 28, 2009 by StevenADunn~SPARTA~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MedicSN6 Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 (edited) Okay, I ran the test off of a fresh boot on Vista Black x64. With the resolution set to 1920x1080 at 16:10 ratio and all settings at Normal including AA and AF and the draw distance set to 1750, the result was a whopping 24 FPS. Not too shabby for the high resolution and normal settings. As with the rest of you guys, I am going to find the best setting for my machine, which again is a E8400 3.00 stock Asus P5k Pro Mobo 4gb 1066Ghz RAM Caviar Sata 7,200 RPM HDD. EVGA 9800 GTX+ 1Gb DDR3 I want to run this at lower resolutions and bring the AA and AF to Low settings then bump the draw to 2000km and see how this goes. I will let you guys know later as I am at work right now. Edited June 28, 2009 by Medic~SPARTA~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Durka-Durka~SPARTA~ Posted June 28, 2009 Author Share Posted June 28, 2009 Can someone explain the two resolution types, and what the best combo would be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cylawyer~SPARTA~ Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 Anyone correct me if I am wrong as my analysis is based on logic and nomenclature. The resolution that says "interface resolution" is just that, the game shell when you launch before the game initiates, you know, all the intro stuff and then the ui for joining a game and the lobby, etc. Mine runs at native resolution for my monitor 1680x1050, but the game does a graphics card/processor/memory check the first time you run it and puts the initial settings where it "thinks" the game will run the best. Mine was 1680x1050 for the "interface resolution" as I stated above, but the game figured my resolution for the "3D resolution" to be 1280x768, which I changed to 1680x1050 to match the native resolution of my monitor. I had read somewhere before that I will actually get less artifacts and a little smoother image if I use native resolution (even if it may cost a few FPS), so that is why I set mine where I did. The "3D resolution" is just that, what the game environment resolution is set to, once the game launches into the server play. This was what I concluded from the names of those settings combined with my past gaming and computer experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MedicSN6 Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 RTFM... what does the manual say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Durka-Durka~SPARTA~ Posted June 29, 2009 Author Share Posted June 29, 2009 RTFM = Read The F-ing Manual? Thanks for the info Cy. I'll see what mine runs best on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Good analysis Cy... I could be way off here, but I am finding that the FPS number that Fraps shows me has very little to do with the performance of the game, as I am playing. Ive gotten some fairly low FPS numbers..like in the 8-10 range and the game still runs smoothly most of the time. Not sure I would get too hung up on FPS numbers as a performance indicator. The Sparta server seems to be running pretty solidly though....I had one period of extreme stutter last night, and none since. I have both resolutions set to 1680x1050 (for the same reasons Cy outlined) and I am happy with those settings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forrester~SPARTA~ Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 settings at standard (didi't pull a lever) Core 2 duo 8400 sitting on a P965 mobo with 3 gig ddr 800 in flex mode, geforce 8800 GTS 320m OC 1680 x 1050 Windows XP SP3 (whilst frantically downloading the full game on steam 1.3 m/s 31 FPS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts